Sravanthi Y, Ramani Y V, Rathod Asha M, Ram Sabita M, Turakhia Hetal
Senior Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, Lenora Institute of Dental sciences , Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh, India .
Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Padmashree Dr. D. Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital , Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India .
J Clin Diagn Res. 2015 Feb;9(2):ZC30-4. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/12069.5559. Epub 2015 Feb 1.
All-ceramic crowns with different core materials of different strength and aesthetics are available in recent years. The aesthetics of the crown depends mainly on the shade and translucency. Clinician should be aware of the quality and characteristics of these materials so that they will be able to opt for good material for successful clinical use.
The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the translucency of crowns fabricated with three different commercially available all-ceramic materials viz. Alumina - CAD-CAM Procera, Lithium disilicate - Pressable IPS e.max Press, Zirconia - CAD-CAM Lava.
All-ceramic crowns (5 per each group and total of 15 samples) were made of Alumina - CAD-CAM Procera (Group I), Lithium disilicate - Pressable IPS e.max Press (Group II), Zirconia - CAD-CAM Lava (Group III) and veneered with their respective layering ceramic. Evaluation for the Translucency (CR=Yb/Yw) over the White (Yw) and Black (Yb) backgrounds at the Incisal, Middle, Cervical, Mesial and Distal thirds of each crown were done using the Spectrophotometer. The results obtained were statistically analyzed by Paired t-test (p<0.05) and Analysis of Variance (p<0.05) for the test of significance among the groups.
Significant differences in the contrast ratios were obtained among the three Groups (p<0.001). In this study, Group II Lithium disilicate-Pressable IPS e.max Press showed higher translucency (0.54). Group III Zirconia - CAD-CAM Lava showed the least translucency (0.75) and the translucency of Group I Alumina - CAD-CAM Procera (0.7) was in between both the groups.
Translucency of material gives fair idea to clinician for the choice of material in different zones during replacement and suitability for restoration in aesthetic zone. Selection of all ceramic system depends on the translucency needed for successful prosthesis of artificial tooth so that it mimics patient's natural dentition. The qualitative measurement of translucency will give the evidence for the clinicians during selection of high or low value translucent tooth for successful replacement. Lithium disilicate - Pressable IPS e.max Press is having better translucency in comparison with other two materials in our study.
近年来,有不同强度和美学效果、采用不同核心材料的全瓷冠可供使用。牙冠的美学效果主要取决于色泽和透明度。临床医生应了解这些材料的质量和特性,以便能够选择合适的材料用于成功的临床应用。
本研究的目的是评估和比较用三种不同的市售全瓷材料制作的牙冠的透明度,这三种材料分别是:氧化铝 - CAD - CAM Procera、二硅酸锂 - 可压铸IPS e.max Press、氧化锆 - CAD - CAM Lava。
全瓷冠(每组5个,共15个样本)由氧化铝 - CAD - CAM Procera(第一组)、二硅酸锂 - 可压铸IPS e.max Press(第二组)、氧化锆 - CAD - CAM Lava(第三组)制成,并用各自的分层陶瓷进行饰面。使用分光光度计在每个牙冠的切端、中部、颈部、近中及远中三分之一处的白色(Yw)和黑色(Yb)背景下评估透明度(CR = Yb/Yw)。对所得结果进行配对t检验(p<0.05)和方差分析(p<0.05),以检验各组之间的显著性。
三组之间的对比度存在显著差异(p<0.001)。在本研究中,第二组二硅酸锂 - 可压铸IPS e.max Press显示出较高的透明度(0.54)。第三组氧化锆 - CAD - CAM Lava显示出最低的透明度(0.75),而第一组氧化铝 - CAD - CAM Procera的透明度(0.7)介于两组之间。
材料的透明度能为临床医生在修复和美学区域修复时选择不同区域的材料提供合理依据。全瓷系统的选择取决于成功制作人工牙假体所需的透明度,以便模仿患者的天然牙列。透明度的定性测量将为临床医生在选择高透明度或低透明度牙齿进行成功修复时提供依据。在我们的研究中,二硅酸锂 - 可压铸IPS e.max Press与其他两种材料相比具有更好的透明度。